I would have to say that I was more than a little disappointed when it came to light that the School Resource Officer did not enter the building at the Parkland High School. I have some questions. Was the carnage(murders)still occurring while he waited outside with his side-arm drawn? Could he hear the shoots being fired? Could he hear the screams and pleas for help?
Then it gets even worse. It has been reported that as many as 4 deputies, including the SRO, were outside of the building behind cars with their side arms drawn when the police arrived? The same questions apply, with the exception of replacing they for he.
There were so many failures by government in this horrific incident that there may well be a commission impaneled to find out what went wrong. Lack of follow-through on tips called in and reported erratic behavior of the shooter, see something say something. The list of failures just keep growing.
It seems to me that there was a commission to investigate the failures of government leading up the events of 9/11. Look at how much better things are now as a result of that commission.
So what is this really about, preventing mass shootings at schools or preventing any mass shootings? Or is it really leading to and about something else?
The big government republican(socialists)propose raising the age from 18 to 21 for a person to buy a semi-automatic rifle or any long gun. The reasoning 18 year olds can not buy a hand gun so why should they be allowed to buy any gun. Is there something magical to being 21? As I recall a person is automatically an adult upon reaching 18. A person can vote upon reaching 18. Will selling guns to only those 21 or older prevent mass shootings. Was the Ft Hood murderer less than 21? Was the San Bernardino duo less than 21, either of them? was the Colorado movie theatre shooter less than 21? Was the Orlando shooter less than 21? Was the Las Vegas shooter less than 21?
Okay, so you pass a law making it illegal to purchase a gun prior to one reaching their 21st birthday. Now what do you do with the 18, 19 and 20 year olds that now are legal and lawful owners of long guns? Do you force them to sell their own personal property? Do you confiscate their personal property with a promise, a conditional promise, to return it or them when they reach 21?
I believe it is more along the line of making it illegal to purchase or be in possession of any firearm prior to reaching the age of 21. There will be exceptions to the law but then again there is always an exception. For instance it would not be against the law for a member of the military active, reserve or guard to possess a fire arm if he or she was not 21, the same exemption would apply to members of law-enforcement who had not yet reached 21. It would be impossible for the members of the military and law-enforcement to perform their duties without a firearm? That covers the possession aspect. But what about the purchase aspect. Since the members of the military and law-enforcement are provided weapons why would they need to purchase one? It is not like times past when a person had to provide their own firearms.
There are many responsible citizens of this Republic that are not 21. They are responsible and act responsibly. Take this example, a responsible young man of 18 marries his high school sweetheart and together they move on and begin to live the American Dream. They want to start a family. They are both of legal age to marry. But it is now illegal for him to protect his young family with a firearm, he does not have one because he has not intention of being a criminal. He is 3 years away from being permitted to buy a firearm, three long years. One night a criminal breaks down the door, for argument’s sake lets say the criminal is also 18. The criminal has a gun, he broke the law. The criminal has his way, there is no resistance he has the upper hand and the only firearm in the house. The young couple endures the most heinous acts possible. They never had a fighting chance, in their haste to do something the politicians and activists made it impossible for them to have a fighting chance. It was taken away, oddly enough in the name of eliminating gun violence. Would things have turned out differently for the couple if they had a gun to defend themselves with? We will never know because that option was removed from the equation. The police officer that arrived at the scene also not quite 21 yet but legally armed looks around and says what a shame as he fills out his report and awaits the crime scene technicians.
So what will be their “we have got to do something” to stop this response be? Will only those 21 and older be allowed to marry? It would prevent underage couples from horrendous criminal acts.
The republicans seem to favor the banning of so-called “bump-stocks” now. A “bump-stock” was not used in the school shooting, it was alleged to have been used in the Las Vegas shooting last October. What other accessories and improvements are they looking at banning. What is to become of the banned items now in possession of individuals? Are they simply to destroy them? Are they to be confiscated? Are they to be turned in? They are in effect personal property, legally owned.
There is a plan to allocate more monies to place an armed SRO in each school. Why was that not done after the first time a student or former student went on a rampage, or just some nut? The question is, Why now? But it has come to light that an armed SRO at the high school in Parkland failed to intervene. He placed his own safety above those he was to protect. Some have attempted to justify his inaction because he was outgunned. Those inside the school were certainly outgunned.
There is also a republican plan to arm teachers who are willing to accept that responsibility and undergo the training. This plan garners little if any democrat support. Which brings me to this there are many who will not accept that level of responsibility, for whatever reason. Some people do no like guns and are uncomfortable around them. Then there was an opinion piece written the other day by a man who claimed he had served in the military and owns personal firearms. He stated that he was not willing and was refusing to take on this responsibility. I am okay with that. It was the reason he gave that caused me some pause. He sais he had done his bit in military.
There has been another idea floated around from time to time about using a volunteer force composed of retired military and law-enforcement to provide security for the schools. Trained and armed to react to and counter any threat. This too has little if any support from the democrats.
There is also more money being planned for additional mental health screening and care. Again why now? It has been long said that there is a mental health crisis. What is different about this shooting?
As to the big government(socialist)democrats they still have only one play in their book, Gun Control. With them it is always seeking to ban something they oppose. I suppose that they oppose anyone having the proper equipment to defend themselves or others.
They want an outright ban on any of what they call assault rifles. Was it not a private citizen who used his AR-15 to stop a shooting in Texas? He had matching firepower. How many more murders would have occurred if he had not been able to intervene?
They want to ban high-capacity magazines. Well just what is high-capacity and who gets to determine that? If a rifle comes with a factory 30 round magazine it is not high-capacity it is standard capacity. If the rifle comes with a 30 round magazine and the magazine is inserted in to the magazine well and a round is chambered, there is one round in the chamber and 29 in the magazine. Release the magazine and “top it off”, there is now one in the chamber and 30 in the magazine, it still holds no more than it was designed, it is still standard capacity.
They say nobody needs an AR-15. Well just who are they to say what I need or dont need. I am the best judge of what I need. The American people didn’t need you to foul up the health system either. You thought you knew better.
The democrats want to impose mandatory registration of firearms. They claim that we register our cars without complaint. Well knucklehead driving a car is a privilege while owning a firearm is a right. A right not granted by government, but a right that is supposed to be protected by government. Something about “Shall not be infringed”.
The democrats and now the republicans(maybe it has always been like that)seem to think they can control criminal activity and criminal acts by imposing further restrictions and limitations on the law-abiding public. Name just one law passed that the criminal element has obeyed. There are major cities in this land that have very strict laws in place concerning the private ownership of firearms, yet the criminal element follows this law not. It is only the law-abiding citizen that is inconvenienced.
The law-makers can not seem to control or deter the law-breakers so they take it out on the law-abiding. After all the law-abiders are the easiest to control.
Now we have corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, refusing to give discounts to NRA members they had previously given. We have a bank that is no longer going to issue the NRA credit card. The mayor pro tem of Dallas wants the NRA convention moved to another city. The NRA had no part in this shooting or any other, but it is the NRA that is being punished.
So where do they go next and what will they do or attempt to do next? The mid-term elections are coming up in just a few short months and the campaign season is almost upon us. The politicians want to be re-elected and others want to be elected. The politicians will ride this wave as long as it lasts.
I would not at all be surprised to see some democrat plans from the past come up once again.
There was a plan to impose a violence tax on a firearm purchase. I Believe this was $25 per firearm
There was a plan to have a per round tax imposed on ammunition purchases. The tax was based on caliber.
There was a plan to limit the amount of ammunition that could be purchased. If I remember correctly the amount that could be purchased was enough to fill the firearm three times.
I am quite sure there were more schemes like these. They were just seeing what and how much they could get away with. They were also testing the waters to see how much support there was and how much push-back they would get. Remember the democrats had complete and total control from 2009 until 2011 and they did nothing about their gun control agenda.
The student(anti-gun)activists have some powerful supporters and backers. They have an ally in the media. They have parents, parents that are in the banking business, the real estate business, and investment business.
What about some future possibilities?
A credit card company could take up an anti-gun policy. They could deny a purchase if it was for a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition. After all they are the one loaning you the money to make the purchase, they would simply deny you the loan.
A bank could take up an anti-gun policy. They could not open a bank account for a person in the business of manufacturing firearms or selling firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition. It would be difficult to operate a business without a bank account. They could deny a business loan or line of credit for any business in the business of firearms.
A property management company could simply deny renewal of a lease for a business manufacturing or selling firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition. Forcing them to move if they can find someone willing to lease them a property for their business. If they cant they will close, go out of business.
How about your bank, the one where you have all of your money. What if they denied a purchase based solely on what was being purchased or where it was being purchased from? Is your money your money? Are you sure? Who has possession?
I could go on but, I am sure you get the picture by now. By the way the above is not giving them any ideas. If I, a simple old boy, with only a high school education can figure this out, they have already thought of it.
The republicans seem to be to eager to capitulate on the gun rights issue. They are offering the democrats a great deal, but the democrats will stamp their feet and say it is not enough. Then they will settle for the ban on accessories, the raising of the minimum age and what ever gestures the republicans can come up with. This will finally give them a launch pad towards their ultimate objective. Their ultimate objective is the total disarmament of the civilian population. I go back to the lead up to same-sex marriage. Fist they settled for civil unions, then they made their move now same-sex couples have something the rest of us lack. Same-sex marriage became the law of the land based on the opinion of the majority of 9. At what point was opposite-sex marriage the law of the land? Ever?
Now I will really stir the pot, and hopefully wake some of you up. What we face is a two-pronged attack and we are going to find ourselves caught in a pincher movement. The NRA, GOA and the rest are fine organizations and have done much to preserve our Second Amendment rights. They could see what was happening before their very eyes. They got tunnel vision. They spent so much time, energy and money standing up to government they missed a bigger threat. They could not see what was going on behind their backs.
The real threat would come from the private sector, by way of the public sector public education to be specific. Rather than rehash all of that go back and read the post “The Big Payoff”.
We are living in interesting times, my friends.
When a boot is on your neck, it no longer matters if it is left boot or a right boot.